Substitution of a Co-Plaintiff in a Criminal Case Involving a Deceased Injured Person
Mr. Phisit, a young man, was fatally shot by Mr. Paisan during a football match. Subsequently, Mr. Phichit, the elder brother of the deceased, initiated a private prosecution against Mr. Paisan for intentional homicide. While the case was pending during the plaintiff’s witness examination stage, the public prosecutor, upon reviewing the investigation file, independently filed a criminal charge against Mr. Paisan for intentional murder and petitioned the court to join the proceedings as a co-plaintiff. The court granted such request.
Thereafter, Mr. Phichai, acting as a statutory representative of the deceased injured person under Section 5(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, was permitted to join as a co-plaintiff with the public prosecutor. However, Mr. Phichai subsequently passed away.
Following his death, Mr. Phichit, the son and estate administrator of Mr. Phichai, filed a motion seeking substitution to continue the proceedings as a co-plaintiff alongside the public prosecutor.
Issue for Determination:
Whether the heir and estate administrator of a co-plaintiff (who acted in a representative capacity of the injured person) has the legal standing to substitute and continue the criminal proceedings.
Holding:
The court shall dismiss the motion.
Reasoning:
The right to act as a co-plaintiff in a criminal case under Section 5(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is a personal right granted specifically to certain relatives of the deceased injured person. Mr. Phichai derived his standing solely as a statutory representative of the injured person, not as an independent holder of rights transferable by inheritance.
Upon Mr. Phichai’s death, such right is extinguished and does not devolve upon his heirs or estate administrator. Therefore, Mr. Phichit, despite being the estate administrator, lacks legal standing to substitute Mr. Phichai in the capacity of a co-plaintiff.
This principle is consistent with Supreme Court Decision No. 2331/2521, which affirms that the authority to act on behalf of the injured person in criminal proceedings is strictly personal and non-transferable.
Conclusion:
The motion for substitution shall be denied. The proceedings shall continue with the public prosecutor as the sole plaintiff.